Extracting knowledge from evaluative text

ABSTRACT

Capturing knowledge from free-form evaluative texts about an entity is a challenging task. New techniques of feature extraction, polarity determination and strength evaluation have been proposed. Feature extraction is particularly important to the task as it provides the underpinnings of the extracted knowledge. The work in this paper introduces an improved method for feature extraction that draws on an existing unsupervised method. By including user-specific prior knowledge of the evaluated entity, we turn the task of feature extraction into one of term similarity by mapping crude (learned) features into a user-defined taxonomy of the entity's features. Results show promise both in terms of the accuracy of the mapping as well as the reduction in the semantic redundancy of crude features.

REFERENCES

• 1: AAAI. Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Effect in Text: Theories and Apps, 2004.
• 2: Rakesh Agrawal , Ramakrishnan Srikant, Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules in Large Databases, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, p.487-499, September 12-15, 1994
• 3: A. Budanitsky and G. Hirst. Semantic distance in wordnet: An experimental, application-oriented evaluation of five measures. In Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources, NAACL, 2001.
• 4: G. Carenini and J. D. Moore. An empirical study of the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument effectiveness. In Proc. IJCAI, 2001.
• 5: I. Dagan. Contextual Word Similarity, chapter 19, pages 459--476. Marcel Dekker Inc, 2000.
• 6: European Conference on AI. Workshop on ML for Information Extraction, 2000.
• 7: Z. S. Harris. Mathematical Structures of Language. Wiley, 1968.
• 8: M. Hu and B. Liu. Feature based summary of customer reviews dataset. http://www.cs.uic.edu/~liub/FBS/FBS.html, 2004.
• 9: Minqing Hu , Bing Liu, Mining and summarizing customer reviews, Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, August 22-25, 2004, Seattle, WA, USA [doi>10.1145/1014052.1014073]
• 10: M. Hu and B. Liu. Mining opinion features in customer reviews. In Proc. AAAI, 2004.
• 11: Kushal Dave , Steve Lawrence , David M. Pennock, Mining the peanut gallery: opinion extraction and semantic classification of product reviews, Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, May 20-24, 2003, Budapest, Hungary [doi>10.1145/775152.775226]
• 12: Dekang Lin, An Information-Theoretic Definition of Similarity, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, p.296-304, July 24-27, 1998
• 13: G. A. Miller. An online lexical database. Int'l Journal of Lexicography, 3(4):235--312, 1990.
• 14: Satoshi Morinaga , Kenji Yamanishi , Kenji Tateishi , Toshikazu Fukushima, Mining product reputations on the Web, Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, July 23-26, 2002, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada [doi>10.1145/775047.775098]
• 15: S. Patwardhan and T. Pedersen. Cpan module wordnet::similarity, 2003.
• 16: P. Resnik. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. In IJCAI, 1995.
• 17: J. Weeds, D. Weir, and D. McCarthy. Characterising measures of lexical distributional similarity. In Proc. COLING, 2004.
• 18: T. Wilson, J. Wiebe, and R. Hwa. Just how mad are you? finding strong and weak opinion clauses. In Proc. AAAI, 2004.
• 19: Ingrid Zukerman , Sarah George , Yingying Wen, Lexical paraphrasing for document retrieval and node identification, Proceedings of the second international workshop on Paraphrasing, p.94-101, July 11-11, 2003, Sapporo, Japan [doi>10.3115/1118984.1118997]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.7 Natural Language Processing
          Subjects: Text analysis

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.7 DOCUMENT AND TEXT PROCESSING
      I.7.5 Document Capture
          Subjects: Document analysis

General Terms:
Experimentation, Measurement

Keywords:
feature extraction, multi-document summarization, semantic mapping, term similarity, user input